← 经卷总目·第一章 书卷的诵读
这不是译本，是辅读层。中文承载文本本身，并逐句标出哪些是塔木德自己的话、 哪些是 施泰因扎尔茨 补入的解释，以及哪些地方翻译必然有所流失。
谢法利亚 的 威廉·戴维森 版用 <b> 标出塔木德原文，其余为
施泰因扎尔茨 补入。下面的比例是逐句从这个标记算出来的，不是判断。
这一面每读 64 句，只有一句以塔木德自己的话为主。把这件事藏起来， 读者会以为自己读的是塔木德；标出来，他才知道自己站在哪里。
（续上）……于是把这段 《巴拉伊塔》 定为照 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大、而不是照 拉比犹大 的意见。
……并把这段 《巴拉伊塔》 定为照 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 的意见，而不是照 拉比犹大 的意见。
and he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, rather than Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉说明这个矛盾：拉比犹大 当真说过如今只可在所定的日期诵读吗？一条密释纳（本卷叶五正）里他却说：村民惯常在星期一、星期四进城的地方，可从十一日起诵读；不惯常进城的地方，只可在十四日诵读。
革玛拉说明这表面上的矛盾：拉比犹大 当真说过，如今既然众人看着诵读 以斯帖书卷 的日子来推算逾越节何时开始，以斯帖书卷 就只可在它所定的日期诵读么？
The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time?
革玛拉从一条密释纳（本卷叶五正）提出矛盾：拉比犹大 说：什么时候可以从亚达月十一日起诵读 以斯帖书卷 呢？
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (5a): Rabbi Yehuda said: When is one permitted to read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar?
是在村民惯常于星期一和星期四进城的地方。
In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday.
然而在他们不惯常于星期一和星期四进城的地方，以斯帖书卷 只可在它所定的日期，就是亚达月十四日诵读。
However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.
这条密释纳表明，至少在村民星期一、星期四进城的地方，即便如今也可从十一日起诵读；因着这个矛盾，拉夫阿施 把那段 《巴拉伊塔》 定为照 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 的意见。
这条密释纳表明：至少在村民于星期一和星期四进城的地方，即便如今，也可从亚达月十一日起诵读 以斯帖书卷。
The mishna indicates that, at least in a place where the villagers enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar even nowadays.
因着这个矛盾，拉夫阿施 把这段 《巴拉伊塔》 定为照 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 的意见。
And due to this contradiction, Rav Ashi establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.
革玛拉表示诧异：拉夫阿施 只因自己解不开一个矛盾，就改动经文，把这段 《巴拉伊塔》 归给另一位贤人吗？
革玛拉表示诧异：只因 拉夫阿施 对 《巴拉伊塔》 里 拉比犹大 的意见与一条密释纳里奉 拉比犹大 之名所引的意见之间的表面矛盾有疑难，他就把这段 《巴拉伊塔》 定为照 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 的意见么？
The Gemara expresses surprise: Because Rav Ashi poses a difficulty due to the apparent contradiction between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita and the opinion cited in a mishna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda?
只因他有一个不知如何解开的疑难，他怎能改动经文呢？
How could he have emended the text just because he had a difficulty that he did not know how to resolve?
革玛拉解释：拉夫阿施 听说这段 《巴拉伊塔》 有两种传法，一说奉 拉比犹大 之名，一说奉 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 之名；他既因两处判断相抵而有疑难，就断定前一种传法不准确、后一种准确，矛盾由此消除。
革玛拉解释：拉夫阿施 听说，有人奉 拉比犹大 之名传这段 《巴拉伊塔》，也有人奉 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 之名传它。
The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi heard that there were those who taught the baraita in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, and there were those who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.
他既因 拉比犹大 的一个判断与 拉比犹大 的另一个判断表面上相抵而有疑难，就说：奉 拉比犹大 之名传的那人不准确，奉 拉比约西·巴尔·犹大 之名传的那人才准确；他就这样消除了矛盾。
And since he had a difficulty with the apparent contradiction between one ruling of Rabbi Yehuda and another ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, he said: The one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yehuda is not precise, whereas the one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is precise, and in this way he eliminated the contradiction.
密释纳说，自约书亚的时代就有城墙的城在十五日诵读；以斯帖书卷并没有明说，根据何在？拉瓦 引以斯帖记 9:19：住无城墙乡村的犹大人以十四日为吉日，由此可推出有城墙的城在十五日守普珥日。
我们在密释纳里学过：自嫩的儿子约书亚的时代就有城墙环绕的城邑，在亚达月十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷。
§ We learned in the mishna: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar.
革玛拉问：这些事从哪里推出？因为 以斯帖书卷 里并没有明说。
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, as they are not stated explicitly in the Megilla?
拉瓦 说：正如经上说：「所以住无城墙乡村的犹大人，如今都以亚达月十四日为欢喜设筵的吉日」（以斯帖记 9:19）。
Rava said: It is as the verse states: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting” (Esther 9:19).
既然无城墙的城镇在十四日守 普珥日，就可推出有城墙的城在十五日守 普珥日。
From the fact that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it may be derived that the walled cities celebrate Purim on the fifteenth.
质疑：何不说无城墙的城镇在十四日守，有城墙的城根本不守？革玛拉表示惊讶：难道他们不是犹太人吗？况且亚哈随鲁的国从印度直到古实，他全国各地都接受了守普珥日。
革玛拉质疑这个答案：就说无城墙的城镇照经上所示在十四日守 普珥日，有城墙的城则全然不守。
The Gemara challenges this answer: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as indicated in the verse, and the walled cities do not celebrate it at all.
革玛拉表示惊讶：难道他们不是犹太人么？
The Gemara expresses astonishment: And are they not Jews?
况且，经上写着亚哈随鲁的国是「从印度直到古实」（以斯帖记 1:1），而守 普珥日 在他国中各地都被接受了（以斯帖记 9:20–23）。
And furthermore: It is written that the kingdom of Ahasuerus was “from Hodu until Cush” (Esther 1:1), and the celebration of Purim was accepted in all of the countries of his kingdom (Esther 9:20–23).
改提一个质疑：何不说有城墙的城十四、十五两日都守？经上写着「每年守亚达月十四日，并那月十五日」，可理解为有的地方两日都守。
毋宁可以这样质疑：就说无城墙的城镇在十四日守 普珥日，有城墙的城在十四日和十五日都守，正如经上写着：「每年守亚达月十四日，并那月十五日」（以斯帖记 9:21）。
Rather, the following challenge may be raised: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth and the walled cities celebrate it on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, as it is written: “That they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same, in every year” (Esther 9:21).
和合本作「每年守亚达月十四、十五两日」，显不出下一段所论的连接词与宾格虚词；这里照革玛拉的读法译。
这节经可以理解为：有些地方两日都守 普珥日。
This verse can be understood to mean that there are places where Purim is celebrated on both days.
革玛拉驳回：经上若写「十四日与十五日」，就如你所说；如今写的是「十四日，并那十五日」，标示宾格的虚词插进来把两日隔开——所以这些地方守十四日，那些地方守十五日。
革玛拉驳回这论证：经上若写着「十四日与十五日」，就如你起初所说的。
The Gemara rejects this argument: If it had been written in the verse: The fourteenth day and [ve] the fifteenth, it would be as you originally said.
希伯来文：若只作 וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר（单用连接词 ו），便可读作同一处守两日；经上实作 וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר，多了宾格虚词 אֵת，革玛拉以它为两日分开的标记。
然而如今经上写的是「十四日，并那十五日」，这里用来标示宾格的虚词插了进来，把两日隔开，表示这两日是分开的。
However, now that it is written: The fourteenth day and [ve’et] the fifteenth day, the particle et used here to denote the accusative comes and interrupts, indicating that the two days are distinct.
所以，这些地方的居民在十四日守 普珥日，那些地方的居民在十五日守。
Therefore, residents of these locations celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, and residents of those locations celebrate it on the fifteenth.
又提议：有城墙之城的居民可任选十四日或十五日。回答：经上说「在它们的诸定期里」，表示这地居民守普珥日的日期，不是那地居民的日期。
革玛拉提议：就说无城墙城镇的居民照经上所说在十四日守 普珥日；至于有城墙之城的居民，愿意的可在十四日守，愿意的也可在十五日守。
The Gemara suggests: Say that residents of unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as stated in the verse, and with regard to residents of walled cities, if they wish they may celebrate it on the fourteenth, and if they wish they may celebrate it on the fifteenth.
革玛拉回答：经上说「在它们的诸定期里」（以斯帖记 9:31），表示这地居民守 普珥日 的日期，不是那地居民守 普珥日 的日期。
The Gemara responds: The verse states: “In their times” (Esther 9:31), indicating that the time when the residents of this place celebrate Purim is not the time when the residents of that place celebrate Purim.
再质疑：何不说有城墙的城在十三日守？回答：合理的是，不在十四日守的有城墙之城，照书珊的样式守，而经上明说书珊在十五日守。
革玛拉又提出一个质疑：就说有城墙的城当在亚达月十三日、而不在十五日守 普珥日。
The Gemara raises another challenge: Say that the walled cities should celebrate Purim on the thirteenth of Adar and not on the fifteenth.
革玛拉回答：合理的是，有城墙之城的居民既不在十四日守 普珥日，就照书珊城的样式守，而经上明说书珊是在十五日守 普珥日 的。
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the residents of walled cities, who do not celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, celebrate it as it is celebrated in Shushan, and it is explicitly stated that Purim was celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth.
守节的日期已有出处；借诵读以斯帖书卷纪念普珥日之事也在这些日子，又从何推出？经上说「这些日子要被纪念、遵守」，可见纪念与遵守相提并论。
革玛拉评论：我们已找到无城墙的城镇在亚达月十四日、有城墙的城在亚达月十五日守 普珥日 的出处；那么，借着诵读 以斯帖书卷 来纪念 普珥日 的事迹也在这些日子，又从哪里推出呢？
The Gemara comments: We found a source for observing the holiday of Purim on the fourteenth of Adar in unwalled towns and on the fifteenth of Adar in walled cities; from where do we derive that remembering the story of Purim through the reading of the Megilla takes place on these days?
革玛拉解释：经上说「这些日子要被纪念、遵守」（以斯帖记 9:28），由此推出：纪念与遵守是相提并论的。
The Gemara explains that the verse states: “That these days should be remembered and observed” (Esther 9:28), from which it is derived that remembering is compared to observing.
和合本此节措辞与语序不同，这里照英译与革玛拉的用法译出所引的半句。
革玛拉指出，这条密释纳不合另一位 坦拿 的意见：《托塞夫塔》 里 拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 说，自亚哈随鲁的时代就有城墙的城在十五日诵读——城是否算有城墙，看亚哈随鲁的时代，而不看约书亚的时代。
革玛拉指出：这条密释纳不合这位 坦拿 的意见，因为 《托塞夫塔》（1:1）里教导：拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 说：自亚哈随鲁的时代就有城墙环绕的城邑，在十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷。
§ The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (1:1) that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus read the Megilla on the fifteenth.
照 《托塞夫塔》，有城墙之城的身份，要看它是否在亚哈随鲁的时代、而不是在约书亚的时代就有城墙来断定。
According to the Tosefta, the status of walled cities is determined based upon whether they were walled in the time of Ahasuerus rather than the time of Joshua.
拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 的缘故：像书珊那样的城在十五日诵读——书珊自亚哈随鲁的时代就有城墙，在那里于十五日诵读，凡自那时就有城墙的城都照样。
革玛拉问：拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 意见的缘故是什么？
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa?
革玛拉解释：像书珊那样的城，在十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷：书珊既是一座自亚哈随鲁的时代就有城墙环绕的城，在那里于十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷，照样，凡自亚哈随鲁的时代就有城墙的城，都在十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷。
The Gemara explains that the Megilla is read on the fifteenth in cities that are like Shushan: Just as Shushan is a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, and one reads the Megilla there on the fifteenth, so too every city that was walled since the days of Ahasuerus reads the Megilla on the fifteenth.
本密释纳 坦拿 的缘故：由两处「无城墙」作同辞类推——以斯帖记 9:19 与申命记 3:5 都说「无城墙」；申命记所指的是约书亚时代就有城墙的城，以斯帖记所指的也是。
革玛拉问：我们这条密释纳的 坦拿，他意见的缘故是什么？
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the tanna of our mishna?
革玛拉解释：这是由一处「无城墙」与另一处「无城墙」作同辞类推推出来的。
The Gemara explains: It is derived through a verbal analogy between one instance of the word unwalled and another instance of the word unwalled.
这里写着：「所以住无城墙乡村的犹大人」（以斯帖记 9:19）；那里，就是以色列民进入以色列地之前摩西对约书亚所说的话里，写着：「这些城都有坚固的高墙，有门有闩；此外还有许多无城墙的乡村」（申命记 3:5）。
It is written here: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19), and it is written there, in Moses’ statement to Joshua before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars; besides unwalled towns, a great many” (Deuteronomy 3:5).
那里，在申命记里，所指的是自嫩的儿子约书亚的时代就有城墙环绕的城；照样，这里所指的也是自嫩的儿子约书亚的时代就有城墙环绕的城。
Just as there, in Deuteronomy, the reference is to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, so too here it is referring to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun.
革玛拉接着问：拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 不照本密释纳 坦拿 的解释，固然是因为他不承认两处「无城墙」之间的同辞类推；然而本密释纳的 坦拿 为什么不照前者的解释？
革玛拉接着说：拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 没有照我们这条密释纳的 坦拿 的意见来解释，固然是因为他不认为可以在用「无城墙」一词的这节经与用「无城墙」一词的那节经之间建立同辞类推。
The Gemara continues: Granted that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna because he did not hold that a verbal analogy can be established between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled.
然而，我们这条密释纳的 坦拿 为什么没有照 拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 的意见来解释呢？
However, what is the reason that the tanna of our mishna did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa?
革玛拉表示惊讶：缘故岂不就是他认定由两处「无城墙」作同辞类推？革玛拉解释原问之意：照本密释纳的 坦拿，书珊是照谁守普珥日的？它既不像无城墙的城镇，也不像有城墙的城——书珊在十五日守，却不是自约书亚的时代就有城墙。
革玛拉表示惊讶：缘故是什么？
The Gemara expresses astonishment: What is the reason?
岂不是因为他认为这是由一处「无城墙」与另一处「无城墙」作同辞类推推出来的么？
Isn’t it because he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one usage of the word unwalled and the other usage of the word unwalled?
革玛拉解释：他所说的是这个，就是问题乃是：照我们这条密释纳的 坦拿，书珊是照着谁守 普珥日 的？
The Gemara explains: This is what he said, i.e., this was the question: According to the tanna of our mishna, in accordance with whom does Shushan observe Purim?
书珊既不像无城墙的城镇，也不像有城墙的城，因为书珊的居民在十五日守 普珥日，这城却不是自约书亚的时代就有城墙环绕的。
Shushan is not like the unwalled towns and not like the walled cities, as residents of Shushan celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, but the city was not surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua.
拉瓦 说（也有人不把这话归于任何一位贤人）：书珊不同，因为神迹是亚达月十五日在那里发生的，所以在那日守；别的城须自约书亚的时代就有城墙，才算有城墙的城，在十五日诵读。
拉瓦 说——也有人不把这话归于任何一位贤人：书珊是不同的，因为神迹是在亚达月十五日在那里发生的，所以 普珥日 在那一日守。
Rava said, and some say it unattributed to any particular Sage: Shushan is different since the miracle occurred in it on the fifteenth of Adar, and therefore Purim is celebrated on that day.
然而别的城，只有自约书亚的时代就有城墙，才算有城墙的城，在亚达月十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷。
However, other cities are only considered walled cities and read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar if they were walled since the days of Joshua.
革玛拉问：照本密释纳的 坦拿，以斯帖记 9:28 讲得通：「每一省份」原文叠用「省」字，多出的一个是要分别自约书亚时代就有城墙、在十五日诵读的城，与自亚哈随鲁时代才有城墙、在十四日诵读的城。
革玛拉问：照我们这条密释纳的 坦拿，经上所写的这节固然讲得通：「这些日子要在每一世代、每一家族、每一省份、每一城邑被纪念、遵守」（以斯帖记 9:28）。
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, this is the meaning of what is written: “And these days should be remembered and observed throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city” (Esther 9:28).
和合本此节语序与措辞不同，这里照英译及革玛拉的读法译；希伯来文作 מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה、עִיר וָעִיר，字面是「一省又一省」「一城又一城」。
「每一省份」这个说法在经上是用重叠的方式表达的，字面读作「一省又一省」，因而多用了一次「省」字；这多出的一个是要分别自嫩的儿子约书亚的时代就有城墙环绕、在十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷 的城，与自亚哈随鲁的时代才有城墙环绕、在十四日诵读 以斯帖书卷 的城。
The phrase “every province [medina]” is expressed in the verse using repetition, so that it reads literally: Every province and province, and therefore contains a superfluous usage of the word province, is meant to distinguish between cities that were surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, where the Megilla is read on the fifteenth, and a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth.
「每一城邑」同样叠用，是要分别书珊与别的城。可是照 拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈，「每一省份」用来分别书珊与非自亚哈随鲁时代就有城墙的城，「每一城邑」又要教什么？
「每一城邑」这个说法同样是用重叠的方式表达的，多用了一次「城」字，也是要分别书珊与别的城，因为书珊虽不是自约书亚的时代就有城墙，普珥日 在那里却在十五日守。
The phrase “every city,” which is similarly expressed through repetition and contains a superfluous usage of the word city, also serves to distinguish between Shushan and other cities, as Purim is celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth despite the fact that it was not walled since the time of Joshua.
然而照 拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈，「每一省份」固然是要分别书珊与别的不是自亚哈随鲁的时代就有城墙的城；那么「每一城邑」这个说法又是要教什么呢？
However, according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, granted that the phrase “every province” comes to distinguish between Shushan and other cities that were not walled since the days of Ahasuerus; but what does the phrase “every city” come to teach?
拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 可以反问：照本密释纳的 坦拿 就讲得通吗？他既由同辞类推得出，又何需「每一省份」？可见这节经是为讲解而来，表示 哈拉哈 照 拉比约书亚·本·利未 的判断：有城墙的城，连同与它相邻、与它可以相望的聚落，都算作那城，在十五日诵读。
革玛拉解释：拉比约书亚·本·库尔哈 可以对你说：照我们这条密释纳的 坦拿，难道就讲得通么？
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you: According to the tanna of our mishna, does it work out well?
他既认为这是由用「无城墙」一词的这节经与用「无城墙」一词的那节经作同辞类推推出来的，我要「每一省份」这个说法做什么呢？
Since he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled, why do I need the phrase “every province”?
毋宁说，这节经是为讲解而来的，表示 哈拉哈 照 拉比约书亚·本·利未 所下的判断。
Rather, the verse comes for a midrashic exposition, and it comes to indicate that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling issued by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
因为 拉比约书亚·本·利未 说：一座有城墙的城，与它相邻的一切聚落，以及与它可以相望的一切聚落，就是从这座有城墙的城可以望见的聚落，都算作这座有城墙的城，在那里于十五日诵读 以斯帖书卷。
As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all settlements adjacent to it, and all settlements that can be seen with it, i.e., that can be seen from the walled city, are considered like the walled city, and the Megilla is read there on the fifteenth.
多远以内算相邻？拉比耶利米（或说 拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴）说：如从哈姆坦到提比里亚，一 米尔。何不直说一 米尔？是要教导一 米尔 有多远——就是这两地之间的距离。
革玛拉问：多远以内算是相邻？
The Gemara asks: Up to what distance is considered adjacent?
拉比耶利米 说——也有人说是 拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 说的：限度如同从哈姆坦城到提比里亚的距离，一 米尔。
Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The limit is like the distance from the town of Ḥamtan to Tiberias, a mil.
革玛拉问：让他干脆说限度是一 米尔 就是了，为什么要提这两个地方呢？
The Gemara asks: Let him say simply that the limit is a mil; why did he have to mention these places?
革玛拉回答：这样措辞的答案是要教导我们：一 米尔 的量是多远？
The Gemara answers that the formulation of the answer teaches us this: How much distance comprises the measure of a mil?
就是从哈姆坦到提比里亚的距离。
It is like the distance from Ḥamtan to Tiberias.
革玛拉再引这两位贤人的另一段话：众先见，就是众先知，定下 梅姆、努恩、察迪、佩伊、卡弗 五个字母在词尾时另有字形。
革玛拉引过 拉比耶利米（有人归于 拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴）的一段话后，又引归于这两位贤人的别的话。
§ Having cited a statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, which some attribute to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the Gemara cites other statements attributed to these Sages.
拉比耶利米 说——也有人说是 拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 说的：众先见，就是众先知，定下 梅姆、努恩、察迪、佩伊、卡弗 这五个字母在词尾时另有一种字形。
Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Seers, i.e., the prophets, were the ones who said that the letters mem, nun, tzadi, peh, and kaf [mantzepakh], have a different form when they appear at the end of a word.
这五个字母合称 מנצפ״ך，即词尾形 ם ן ץ ף ך。
（下接 3a）革玛拉问：怎能这样理解？利未记 27:34「这就是……的命令」表示此后先知不得创立或更改任何 哈拉哈，先知怎能为字母定下新字形？况且 拉夫希斯达 说，西奈所赐约版上的 梅姆 与 萨麦克……
革玛拉问：你怎能这样理解呢？
The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way?
经上岂不是写着：「这就是耶和华在西奈山为以色列人所吩咐摩西的命令」（利未记 27:34），表示从此以后，先知不得创立或更改任何一件 哈拉哈 么？
Isn’t it written: “These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34), which indicates that a prophet is not permitted to initiate or change any matter of halakha from now on?
那么，先知怎能为字母定下新的字形呢？
Consequently, how could the prophets establish new forms for the letters?
况且，拉夫希斯达 岂不是说过：在西奈山所赐的约版上，梅姆 与 萨麦克 这两个字母……
And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: The letters mem and samekh in the tablets of the covenant given at Sinai